Faculty Is the Most Important Criteria for College?

<p>I happen to see education in a different light than the current view. I tend to see college as a place where you go to improve yourself and become a better person.</p>

<p>I liken this search to learning tae-kwon-do. Choosing between a low ranked master vs. a top ranked master. Why would you choose a lower ranked master to learn from? Because he will give you an easier time? This to me is a silly reason to not go to a top ranked master. Learning from the best to me is a very easy choice to make. </p>

<p>Here is a ranking of the best rated faculty in terms of peer reputation in the entire world by the THES London Times. ( I left out most foreign Universities)</p>

<ol>
<li>UCBerkeley -- 665</li>
<li>Harvard -- 643</li>
<li>Oxford -- 560</li>
<li>Cambridge -- 541</li>
<li>MIT -- 484</li>
<li>Stanford -- 420</li>
<li>Princeton -- 353</li>
<li>Yale -- 347</li>
<li>University of Chicago -254</li>
<li>CalTech -- 236</li>
<li>Columbia -- 213</li>
<li>Cornell - 202</li>
<li>UCLA - 180</li>
<li>University of Michigan - 173</li>
</ol>

<p>I truly think that the state of education is truly dependent on how highly we prize our learning and the excellence of our professors and research. If we lose focus on this, then the entire point of going to college to learn is lost.</p>

<p>how about explaining the link between having bright profs on the same campus you attend and your education? You seem to be making heroic assumptions about who teaches the classes, the amount of contact you will have with senior faculty, the role of classroom interaction in learning, and so on. </p>

<p>but, hey, no worries. As you said, for you it was "a very easy choice to make".</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Since you'll be learning "tae kwon do" in college in classes with at LEAST ten other students, often 50+ other students. If the other students in the class are beginners and you're a black belt, it doesn't really matter how good the master is -- you're going to have to sit there and be bored while he answers their ignorant questions and teaches them the basics. So I'd worry first about your fellow "athletes" and second about the "master."</p>

<p>
[quote]
So I'd worry first about your fellow "athletes" and second about the "master."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that's 100% wrong. At any one of those schools you can find a level of class that will give you a challenge in any field. Calculus II too easy for you? I bet a 400-500 level non-linear, theoretical, number theory course wouldn't be. If it was you could start taking even higher graduate level (or even doctoral level) stuff. They're not going to stop you because of your class level if you're capable of doing the work.</p>

<p>...but that situation only applies to 1/3443846 people anyway.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>If you want a good academic experience in the humanities and social sciences, you need to have decent class discussions. Simply taking a 300-level class is not the issue. If no one in the class cares, or has anything of interest to say, or understood the reading, or bothered to do the reading, class is going to be painful, and all your learning is going to take place at home with your books -- which you could have borrowed from the library for free. So unless you think it's OK for all your classes in literature or political science to be lectures, you should care about who's in that class with you. I had great professors at Bryn Mawr and I was still bored to death in class.</p>